A blurry photo

On 11/10/2013 10:57 PM, Tim Conway wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

Hey Peter, I like it. It's kind of impressionistic and depicts the motion.


Thanks. In my POV the creator is the only one who has to like it. You
hit the nail on the head. It is impressionistic, and done in camera.

Would that be an American Oyster Catcher?

Yup. There is a breeding colony of them about 20 minutes away.

I once had a similar photo of some white geese coming upon a nest of
Canadien geese and tormenting them and the standoff between the Canadien
geese couple and the two or three white geese was really
interesting----mainly because my flash batteries died and I didn't have a
replacement, so I captured the scene at a slow blurrred shutter speed. LOL
It actually worked better than a sharp shot with flash cuz it suggested the
movement and action going on.
Tim


Can you post a link, I would enjoy seeing it.

--
PeterN

On 11/7/2013 12:00 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-07 15:30:21 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/6/2013 5:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-06 21:17:59 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/6/2013 11:50 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-05 20:04:07 +0000, PeterN
said:

Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

There is no accounting for taste.

True.

It seems to me that this is one of those shots which should have been
considered a reject (I have a whole bunch of those) and you have
cropped
to find something which comes into your definition of artistic
expression. That does not make a blurry, OoF shot in anyway good. This
is a poor capture which you are trying to tell us is actually good
when
it isn't.

As you say "some photos are not supposed to be sharp", but just saying
that and implying that this is somehow better for the blur is
dellusional in your part.
Let me go through some of my artistic rejects, and post them here with
the claim that my screw-ups are ultimately works of art. Not in my
wildest dreams would I think that, and I am sorry to say this shot of
yours doesn't rise to the occasion either.


That shot can never be "in focus."

Hmmm...
Could this be the time for, "Never, say never"?

The bird was diving through the wave and was covered with water.

I suspect the crop section was never near the active AF point.



The entire shot, or should I say the crop section is entirely OoF. You
had the shutter speed fast enough at 1/2000 @f/11 to freeze the bird in
flight, the wave, or anything else moving in that area. What would be
interesting would be to see the pre-cropped image and I suspect the
primary focus point would have been somewhere other than that bird, or
that general target area. Somewhere in that image is a nice sharp,
in-focus area, but that bird and the wave behind it never had a chance,
I doubt if you had any of the focus points anywhere near the bird when
you tripped the shutter. I also doubt that you were panning with the
bird as it flew along the wave front.

Personally, as a fellow Nikon shooter, I would have used 3D-Tracking for
the Dynamic Area AF points, along will AF-C rather than AF-S. This is
what I use for stuff in motion, card, planes, cyclists, birds, etc. That
way your birdie and its wave might have had a chance to be captured
cleanly.

In theory you are right. In reality, we can't always achieve the
ideal. I was looking for the birds along hte shore, and I saw this
guy. No time to switch or worry a bout composition. Just a swing and
wing, shot.

My point is you know what your subject is likely to be when you intend
to shoot shorebirds either in flight or running around on the beach. So
set your camera up before you get out of your car.
I know you use menu pre-sets on your nikons, so do I. I have a standard
pre-set, an "Action" pre-set, and two others. You shouldn't have had to
think about switching or composition. If I got to an air show knowing I
am going to be shooting planes making low and fast passes I have my
camera set up to deal with that. I still have a bunch of rejects, but I
end up with more to work with with my keepers.

What you do in post is an entirely separate issue, that includes making
a crop in post, and with your D800 files you certainly have room to make
composition crops.

Here are two shots with original comparison. One includes a subject
dealing with a breaking wave, and one moving quite fast through the air.
In both cases I was shooting 3D-Tracking with 51 AF points, set to AF-C.
Both were cropped, and in one the post is obvious.
...and I am not shooting with a D800, I am still using my D300S.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_359.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_358.jpg



However, to my eye the blur looks interesting.

...in the eye of the beholder, etc.

I do appreciate your comment, even if you don't like the shot.

I would have been more inclined to like it if there had been a tad more
deliberation in capture.


I asked him to go back, but he wouldn't cooperate.

Give me a day or two and I will post a link ot the .nef file.

Play time! ;-)



The original image was not where I thought it would be. Anyway, once I
get LR, I have a large cataloging project.

--
PeterN

On 11/10/2013 4:33 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-10 19:12:40 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

PeterN wrote:
On 11/10/2013 12:49 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 11/5/2013 2:04 PM, PeterN wrote:
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

Those that can, do. Those that can't, apply
Photoshop "artistic" filters.
That image was pretty much of a crop. No filters were
used, except for
some sharpening and noise removal.
The problem isn't Photoshop, nor its "artistic"
filters.
It's just that Ansel Adams got it wrong! His famous
quote about "nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy
concept" misses, by some distance, the true horror of a
fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept...
That's clearly what you've got there. We all make such
things now and then, but my advice is to toss it and
anything else like it, and do not ever show such things
to anyone.

There is a time and a place for everything, and to try and sell a bad,
fuzzy OoF, cropped shot as some sort of abstract just doesn't work.
Definitely not for this shot of Peter's. Sometimes the reject bin is
the best option.

I think once more we have a point of agreement there Floyd. :-)
Is Hell freezing over, or is Winter closing in on Barrow?

All is quite normal here. We've had snow on the ground for well
over a month... But, is it freezing there at your place?

In regard to abstracts that don't work, or anything else
that doesn't fit the photographer's idea of how others
should see their work, I have two bits of experience to
share. The first one is do not *EVER* show un-edited,
un-culled, un-selected images of a child to its mother
(or of a dog to its owner). Once they've seen it, you
can never delete that image, or risk having the kid's
mother know that you did. The picture is in her mind
and you'd better be able to produce it! Cull first, show
later.

Another lesson has to do with these wierd "abstracts"
that are mildly interesting, but belong in the waste
basket. Don't ever let anyone see them!

It's a lesson I learned years back when I printed a few
shots of a young woman in her wedding gown, and the
@#$%^&* printer went crazy! It gave a squirt of cyan
ink anytime it did any other color. Three or four
prints were made before I stopped it. It happened that
the background was mostly blue sky and blue ocean, so
the result was "interesting". Not good, just
interesting. But I made the mistake of showing those
prints to her father.

How was I to know he has goofy ideas about colors? He
likes almost anything that is over saturated! I told him
these were rejects from a malfunctioning printer. He
picked them up, and said thank you! I was sort of dumb
struck, and he walked off with them. I spent the next
two weeks getting used to the idea that for the rest of
his life he would probably show those horrible prints to
people and tell them it was a great example of my
photography! (His house burned to the ground a few
years later and I swear I didn't have anything to do
with it... But I did note it wasn't a total disaster,
he and his family got out alive and those prints
didn't!)


I really appreciate you comment. I also recognize that not all of us
have the same taste, which is a good thing. Can you imagine what Barrow
would be like if even 100,000 people decided to move there? ;-p

I fully understand hwat you were saying. In this case I was shooting the
bird diving through the waves, and was as close as I could get. My D800
allows me to do severe crops, without the image breaking up. Since I was
not using AFC, I was lucky to get the image.

--
PeterN

PeterN wrote:
On 11/10/2013 4:33 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-10 19:12:40 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

PeterN wrote:
On 11/10/2013 12:49 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 11/5/2013 2:04 PM, PeterN wrote:
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

Those that can, do. Those that can't, apply
Photoshop "artistic" filters.
That image was pretty much of a crop. No filters were
used, except for
some sharpening and noise removal.
The problem isn't Photoshop, nor its "artistic"
filters.
It's just that Ansel Adams got it wrong! His famous
quote about "nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy
concept" misses, by some distance, the true horror of a
fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept...
That's clearly what you've got there. We all make such
things now and then, but my advice is to toss it and
anything else like it, and do not ever show such things
to anyone.

There is a time and a place for everything, and to try and sell a bad,
fuzzy OoF, cropped shot as some sort of abstract just doesn't work.
Definitely not for this shot of Peter's. Sometimes the reject bin is
the best option.

I think once more we have a point of agreement there Floyd. :-)
Is Hell freezing over, or is Winter closing in on Barrow?

All is quite normal here. We've had snow on the ground for well
over a month... But, is it freezing there at your place?

In regard to abstracts that don't work, or anything else
that doesn't fit the photographer's idea of how others
should see their work, I have two bits of experience to
share. The first one is do not *EVER* show un-edited,
un-culled, un-selected images of a child to its mother
(or of a dog to its owner). Once they've seen it, you
can never delete that image, or risk having the kid's
mother know that you did. The picture is in her mind
and you'd better be able to produce it! Cull first, show
later.

Another lesson has to do with these wierd "abstracts"
that are mildly interesting, but belong in the waste
basket. Don't ever let anyone see them!

It's a lesson I learned years back when I printed a few
shots of a young woman in her wedding gown, and the
@#$%^&* printer went crazy! It gave a squirt of cyan
ink anytime it did any other color. Three or four
prints were made before I stopped it. It happened that
the background was mostly blue sky and blue ocean, so
the result was "interesting". Not good, just
interesting. But I made the mistake of showing those
prints to her father.

How was I to know he has goofy ideas about colors? He
likes almost anything that is over saturated! I told him
these were rejects from a malfunctioning printer. He
picked them up, and said thank you! I was sort of dumb
struck, and he walked off with them. I spent the next
two weeks getting used to the idea that for the rest of
his life he would probably show those horrible prints to
people and tell them it was a great example of my
photography! (His house burned to the ground a few
years later and I swear I didn't have anything to do
with it... But I did note it wasn't a total disaster,
he and his family got out alive and those prints
didn't!)


I really appreciate you comment. I also recognize that not all of us
have the same taste, which is a good thing. Can you imagine what Barrow
would be like if even 100,000 people decided to move there? ;-p

That's when Hell *would* freeze over, because that's
what we'd have...

Actually it wouldn't take anything near that many people
either, and it could happen in the next few years.
There will soon be fiber optic cables crossing the
Arctic Ocean both to Europe and to Asia. There will
probably be a spur down the east coast to the US and
from the western Aleutian Islands to the US west coast,
plus the existing fiber from Prudhoe Bay to the US west
coast.

Doesn't sound like a big deal as such, but that puts
Barrow not just on top of the world physically, but
literally in terms of low latency to anywhere via the
Internet. Shaving just microseconds off the time for
trading on the world's stock markets is worth billions,
and this would be milliseconds.

There won't be any place more ideally suited in terms of
low latency than the North Slope of Alaska. Worse yet
the biggest cost of any massive data storage system is
heat removal and the second biggest is electricity. We
have the lowest air conditioning costs possible, and very
close to the lowest electric cost (due to low cost
natural gas).

Hence I fear very much that within a few years we could have
a pair of huge buildings, one housing stock brokers and the
other filled with disk drives.

I fully understand hwat you were saying. In this case I was shooting the
bird diving through the waves, and was as close as I could get. My D800
allows me to do severe crops, without the image breaking up. Since I was
not using AFC, I was lucky to get the image.

It's a waste. But I certainly don't disagree with how
you made it, or why! Or with the fascination with what
it is and isn't.

I just wouldn't show that to anybody...

And if your intent was to photograph birds, why weren't
you using AFC?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 2013-11-11 11:42:30 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/10/2013 10:57 PM, Tim Conway wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

Hey Peter, I like it. It's kind of impressionistic and depicts the motion.


Thanks. In my POV the creator is the only one who has to like it.

You are quite right, the only who has to like it is the creator.
However, there are ties the lesson of the "Emperor's New Clothes"
should be heeded. Just because you say you like it doesn't mean we
should feel bad that we don't. What has been said in the case of this
image has been unfettered constructive criticism.

You hit the nail on the head. It is impressionistic, and done in camera.

Now that is a statement I don't buy completely. While there is
something impressionistic about the image as presented, that does not
make it good. It is not good technical, or artistic photography.

Adding "...and done in camera" to that sentence implies what you did
was deliberate. It seems obvious to me that the appearance of that
image was due to a bad camera set up not something you planned to
happen. What you have actually done is to take a screw up and present
to us the proverbial "purse from a sow's ear" and to my eye it didn't
work.
Don't tell us that what you did was done deliberately in camera, when
you really had no idea of what you had captured until you were able to
view it on your computer. Up until that point I suspect that you hoped
you had made a decent capture of a fleeting scene. I have quite a
number of those shots I believed were going to be great, and totally
disappointed me once the truth was revealed that I had screwed up with
something during the time my brain recognized there was a shot to take
and tripping the shutter. Sometimes I have been able to recover
something from the shot, many times the recovery was not even close to
my original intent. Most times it was, for whatever reason still a poor
shot.

There are times that one can make something of a technical foul up, I
have done it, and I am sure that most of us here have done it, but this
was not a worthy candidate. You tried your best, it did not work.

Now get out there with the camera set up for shooting those birds
flying along the surf line and give us some great captures.




--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 11/11/2013 8:05 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 11/10/2013 4:33 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-10 19:12:40 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

PeterN wrote:
On 11/10/2013 12:49 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 11/5/2013 2:04 PM, PeterN wrote:
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

Those that can, do. Those that can't, apply
Photoshop "artistic" filters.
That image was pretty much of a crop. No filters were
used, except for
some sharpening and noise removal.
The problem isn't Photoshop, nor its "artistic"
filters.
It's just that Ansel Adams got it wrong! His famous
quote about "nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy
concept" misses, by some distance, the true horror of a
fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept...
That's clearly what you've got there. We all make such
things now and then, but my advice is to toss it and
anything else like it, and do not ever show such things
to anyone.

There is a time and a place for everything, and to try and sell a bad,
fuzzy OoF, cropped shot as some sort of abstract just doesn't work.
Definitely not for this shot of Peter's. Sometimes the reject bin is
the best option.

I think once more we have a point of agreement there Floyd. :-)
Is Hell freezing over, or is Winter closing in on Barrow?

All is quite normal here. We've had snow on the ground for well
over a month... But, is it freezing there at your place?

In regard to abstracts that don't work, or anything else
that doesn't fit the photographer's idea of how others
should see their work, I have two bits of experience to
share. The first one is do not *EVER* show un-edited,
un-culled, un-selected images of a child to its mother
(or of a dog to its owner). Once they've seen it, you
can never delete that image, or risk having the kid's
mother know that you did. The picture is in her mind
and you'd better be able to produce it! Cull first, show
later.

Another lesson has to do with these wierd "abstracts"
that are mildly interesting, but belong in the waste
basket. Don't ever let anyone see them!

It's a lesson I learned years back when I printed a few
shots of a young woman in her wedding gown, and the
@#$%^&* printer went crazy! It gave a squirt of cyan
ink anytime it did any other color. Three or four
prints were made before I stopped it. It happened that
the background was mostly blue sky and blue ocean, so
the result was "interesting". Not good, just
interesting. But I made the mistake of showing those
prints to her father.

How was I to know he has goofy ideas about colors? He
likes almost anything that is over saturated! I told him
these were rejects from a malfunctioning printer. He
picked them up, and said thank you! I was sort of dumb
struck, and he walked off with them. I spent the next
two weeks getting used to the idea that for the rest of
his life he would probably show those horrible prints to
people and tell them it was a great example of my
photography! (His house burned to the ground a few
years later and I swear I didn't have anything to do
with it... But I did note it wasn't a total disaster,
he and his family got out alive and those prints
didn't!)


I really appreciate you comment. I also recognize that not all of us
have the same taste, which is a good thing. Can you imagine what Barrow
would be like if even 100,000 people decided to move there? ;-p

That's when Hell *would* freeze over, because that's
what we'd have...

Actually it wouldn't take anything near that many people
either, and it could happen in the next few years.
There will soon be fiber optic cables crossing the
Arctic Ocean both to Europe and to Asia. There will
probably be a spur down the east coast to the US and
from the western Aleutian Islands to the US west coast,
plus the existing fiber from Prudhoe Bay to the US west
coast.

Doesn't sound like a big deal as such, but that puts
Barrow not just on top of the world physically, but
literally in terms of low latency to anywhere via the
Internet. Shaving just microseconds off the time for
trading on the world's stock markets is worth billions,
and this would be milliseconds.

There won't be any place more ideally suited in terms of
low latency than the North Slope of Alaska. Worse yet
the biggest cost of any massive data storage system is
heat removal and the second biggest is electricity. We
have the lowest air conditioning costs possible, and very
close to the lowest electric cost (due to low cost
natural gas).

Hence I fear very much that within a few years we could have
a pair of huge buildings, one housing stock brokers and the
other filled with disk drives.

I fully understand hwat you were saying. In this case I was shooting the
bird diving through the waves, and was as close as I could get. My D800
allows me to do severe crops, without the image breaking up. Since I was
not using AFC, I was lucky to get the image.

It's a waste. But I certainly don't disagree with how
you made it, or why! Or with the fascination with what
it is and isn't.

I just wouldn't show that to anybody...

And if your intent was to photograph birds, why weren't
you using AFC?


Yes, for that type of shooting I probably should have.
I do not always use AFC, just as a matter of habit. The vast majority of
birds were more like these:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/feeding%20junior.jpg

--
PeterN

On 11/11/2013 8:05 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:

snip

I really appreciate you comment. I also recognize that not all of us
have the same taste, which is a good thing. Can you imagine what Barrow
would be like if even 100,000 people decided to move there? ;-p

That's when Hell *would* freeze over, because that's
what we'd have...

Actually it wouldn't take anything near that many people
either, and it could happen in the next few years.
There will soon be fiber optic cables crossing the
Arctic Ocean both to Europe and to Asia. There will
probably be a spur down the east coast to the US and
from the western Aleutian Islands to the US west coast,
plus the existing fiber from Prudhoe Bay to the US west
coast.

Doesn't sound like a big deal as such, but that puts
Barrow not just on top of the world physically, but
literally in terms of low latency to anywhere via the
Internet. Shaving just microseconds off the time for
trading on the world's stock markets is worth billions,
and this would be milliseconds.

There won't be any place more ideally suited in terms of
low latency than the North Slope of Alaska. Worse yet
the biggest cost of any massive data storage system is
heat removal and the second biggest is electricity. We
have the lowest air conditioning costs possible, and very
close to the lowest electric cost (due to low cost
natural gas).

Hence I fear very much that within a few years we could have
a pair of huge buildings, one housing stock brokers and the
other filled with disk drives.

snip

The closest I've been to Barrow was Fairbanks. On that day the
temperature hit 95. No air conditioning in the restaurants, and the
hotel A/C was not up to the challenge. On that day I could have made a
fortune selling ice in Alaska.



--
PeterN

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2013 10:57 PM, Tim Conway wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

Hey Peter, I like it. It's kind of impressionistic and depicts the
motion.


Thanks. In my POV the creator is the only one who has to like it. You hit
the nail on the head. It is impressionistic, and done in camera.

Would that be an American Oyster Catcher?

Yup. There is a breeding colony of them about 20 minutes away.

I once had a similar photo of some white geese coming upon a nest of
Canadien geese and tormenting them and the standoff between the Canadien
geese couple and the two or three white geese was really
interesting----mainly because my flash batteries died and I didn't have a
replacement, so I captured the scene at a slow blurrred shutter speed.
LOL
It actually worked better than a sharp shot with flash cuz it suggested
the
movement and action going on.
Tim


Can you post a link, I would enjoy seeing it.

I don't have an account to host images. I'd like to email you a version of
it once I find it and digitize it. Thanks,
Tim

On 11/11/2013 9:25 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-11 11:42:30 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/10/2013 10:57 PM, Tim Conway wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

Hey Peter, I like it. It's kind of impressionistic and depicts the
motion.


Thanks. In my POV the creator is the only one who has to like it.

You are quite right, the only who has to like it is the creator.
However, there are ties the lesson of the "Emperor's New Clothes" should
be heeded. Just because you say you like it doesn't mean we should feel
bad that we don't. What has been said in the case of this image has been
unfettered constructive criticism.

You hit the nail on the head. It is impressionistic, and done in camera.

Now that is a statement I don't buy completely. While there is something
impressionistic about the image as presented, that does not make it
good. It is not good technical, or artistic photography.

Adding "...and done in camera" to that sentence implies what you did was
deliberate. It seems obvious to me that the appearance of that image was
due to a bad camera set up not something you planned to happen. What you
have actually done is to take a screw up and present to us the
proverbial "purse from a sow's ear" and to my eye it didn't work.
Don't tell us that what you did was done deliberately in camera, when
you really had no idea of what you had captured until you were able to
view it on your computer. Up until that point I suspect that you hoped
you had made a decent capture of a fleeting scene. I have quite a number
of those shots I believed were going to be great, and totally
disappointed me once the truth was revealed that I had screwed up with
something during the time my brain recognized there was a shot to take
and tripping the shutter. Sometimes I have been able to recover
something from the shot, many times the recovery was not even close to
my original intent. Most times it was, for whatever reason still a poor
shot.

When shooting birds diving through waves, a godd shot is a lucky shot. I
also figured that I'd get something similar to human surfer shots.


There are times that one can make something of a technical foul up, I
have done it, and I am sure that most of us here have done it, but this
was not a worthy candidate. You tried your best, it did not work.


Horses for courses.

Now get out there with the camera set up for shooting those birds flying
along the surf line and give us some great captures.


YES SIR!!!!!!


--
PeterN

On 11/11/2013 5:42 PM, Tim Conway wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2013 10:57 PM, Tim Conway wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

Hey Peter, I like it. It's kind of impressionistic and depicts the
motion.


Thanks. In my POV the creator is the only one who has to like it. You hit
the nail on the head. It is impressionistic, and done in camera.

Would that be an American Oyster Catcher?

Yup. There is a breeding colony of them about 20 minutes away.

I once had a similar photo of some white geese coming upon a nest of
Canadien geese and tormenting them and the standoff between the Canadien
geese couple and the two or three white geese was really
interesting----mainly because my flash batteries died and I didn't have a
replacement, so I captured the scene at a slow blurrred shutter speed.
LOL
It actually worked better than a sharp shot with flash cuz it suggested
the
movement and action going on.
Tim


Can you post a link, I would enjoy seeing it.

I don't have an account to host images. I'd like to email you a version of
it once I find it and digitize it. Thanks,
Tim



thanks.
You could get a free Dropbox account at
http//www.dropbox.com
I, the duck ans several others use dropbox.

--
PeterN